Standing Committee B

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Gambling Bill

Roger Gale: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the first sitting of the new Session. Housekeeping arrangements and the usual rules will apply, but before we resume I wish to point out that the Bill has been reprinted, as amended by our discussions in Committee in the previous Session. Some page and line numbers have been changed, so it might be convenient for hon. Members to avail themselves of copies of the reprint, otherwise there might be a little confusion.Clause 33 Territorial application

Clause 33 - Territorial application

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Moss: The clause relates to the territorial application of remote gambling. At the 11th hour, those involved in offshore remote gambling are saying that there are problems with the clause and that things depend on our definition of equipment. At present, many offshore remote gambling institutions have their remote servers offshore, although they run the business from this country, as a result of which their management teams, offices, administration and banking facilities are here. If the clause catches all the operations—an all-in or all-out situation—the institutions say that they will probably move their whole operation offshore, in which case jobs and facilities will be lost here.
 In the uncertain period before the Bill kicks in as an Act, there is a big question mark, especially in relation to the taxation regime, over whether the institutions should come in or stay out. Until the institutions know that, they are not willing to make firm decisions and, to avoid a remote gambling licence kicking in during the intervening period, they might move everything offshore. 
 We must consider what the Government mean by subsection (4)(a) to (d). Paragraph (d), for example, says: 
''to accept payment in respect of gambling''. 
Most internet gambling is carried out through banking systems onshore in this country, and the Government seem to be suggesting that everything related to the businesses would trigger the need for a licence. It would be helpful to have on the record what the Government intend by the provision and to know whether they have had discussions with the organisations involved, such as Sporting Bet and 
 others. We want matters dealt with in a sensible and pragmatic way to ensure that we retain at least some facilities and jobs, whether or not the final decision is to operate onshore or offshore. 
 I understand that, in other countries, the location of the remote server—the computer—is the key, and not the ancillary activities that may be part of the overall operation. Will the Minister explain the Government's thinking? Have they had discussions about the matter and are they aware of the concerns that have been expressed by that section of the industry? Do they intend to put such matters right in the Bill or leave them to be dealt with under the guidelines of the gambling commission at a later date?

Richard Page: In view of the fallout of my remarks during a previous sitting, I shall be more circumspect today.
 The Minister will remember that one reason why I firmly support the general principle of the Bill is that technology has moved on. Life has become much more exciting and, if we do not have proper gambling legislation to regulate the new technologies, we will not only be in several difficulties in respect of the moral and financial aspects of gambling, but drive the operators and their businesses offshore. So, I support my hon. Friend. This clause should be read in conjunction with clause 84(2). 
 We must understand that, because of the way in which the technology has developed, the legislation that we produce will almost inevitably always be behind the curve; the technology will be there, and we shall have to try to license and regulate it. Unless we get it right, there is a danger that people will take their business elsewhere. My hon. Friend mentioned the location of banking facilities, and if they are not in one place, there is no reason why the management systems will not follow them. 
 The mobility of interactive and internet activities is an aspect of internationality that is not, I think, fully understood. Australia is desperately trying to keep out a certain internet betting exchange, but as night follows days, it will not succeed. Those in Australia who want to use such betting exchanges will inevitably achieve their aim in some shape of form. The Australian authorities must simply try to ensure that exchanges are run as well as possible under their control and their regulations, and that they are not located in some other country. 
 I would be grateful if the Minister fleshed out as far as possible what the clause will mean. My hon. Friend mentioned the regulatory and tax regimes, which must be set at an appropriate level so that companies—obviously, this includes British companies—will be interested in locating their offshore activities in the UK. That would bring with it the advantages that we discussed, such as inward investment, job creation and new revenue for the Treasury. Indeed, I understand that given the way things are going, the Treasury desperately needs more money to fund its programme for the future. 
 I therefore look forward to the Minister's comments and particularly to his assuring the companies that will be looking at banking regimes and at where to locate their headquarters.

Nick Hawkins: I want to add briefly to the comments by my hon. Friends the Members for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) and for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page). My concern is that companies should be able to rely on whatever the Minister says on behalf of Her Majesty's Government about the views of Her Majesty's Treasury. I always suspect—as I did throughout the process that led up to the Bill and to this Committee—that the Treasury is working the Department for Culture, Media and Sport by remote control. We all know that the Treasury is the most powerful Department, whichever party is in power. The Government originally wanted a free-for-all for these casinos because the Treasury's eyes had lit up at the prospect of lots of extra tax, but they were forced into their humiliating retreat part way through this Committee's deliberations.
 Although that is history, we still need to be sure that companies will be able to rely on the Minister's words today as an absolutely cast-iron guarantee that the Chancellor will not come along later to change the rules and change the territorial basis on which companies' tax treatment and operations are treated. I therefore make it absolutely clear that what the Minister is about to say must be written in stone, so that the Chancellor, in his pre-Budget statement in a few days' time, or in the next Budget, will not suddenly change the basis of what we are debating today.

Richard Caborn: I say to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) that the standard line of the Treasury, whatever Government are in power, is that tax and other matters are always kept under review. The hon. Gentleman will get that standard answer from any Treasury of any Government.
 Clause 33 establishes the territorial scope of clause 30, and draws a distinction between facilities for remote gambling and facilities for non-remote gambling, which is sometimes better known as ''bricks and mortar'' gambling. As far as the latter is concerned, the clause establishes that if every action a person took in providing a facility for gambling were taken outside Great Britain, no offence could be committed. However, if any such thing were done here, the system of regulation set out in the Bill would apply. 
 The position will be similar on remote gambling. We do not seek to regulate gambling operations that are run wholly offshore, but if any part of the remote gambling equipment were located here, the full system of regulation would apply. We do not want a company to establish some aspects of its operation here, and some abroad, and to succeed in falling between the two regulatory stools. 
 The clause provides a definition of remote gambling equipment for those purposes. That definition makes it clear that genuine internet cafes, for example, would not need a gambling commission operating licence just because their customers used their terminals to gamble on offshore websites. We would rather that customers who decided to gamble remotely used well regulated British websites, but if they decided to do otherwise, there should be no penalty. 
 The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire inquired whether we are keeping the issue under review; the answer is yes. We are aware of the issues that he raised and are considering whether further changes are needed. However, we need to make sure that the key gambling equipment is properly regulated.

Malcolm Moss: That is very helpful. I am sure that those involved in the industry will be heartened by the Minister's comment that the issue is under review and that changes may be needed in the future. He has mentioned the word ''equipment'' two or three times; what does he mean by equipment? What is the Government's definition of the word in relation to remote gambling? Would such equipment be just a server, or the computer equipment used to register people online or process their payments? That is the key: what does ''equipment'' really stand for?

Richard Caborn: To complete what I was saying, we are in discussions with the trade associations and, if there are to be changes, we hope to bring them back. Because it is important also to ensure that users are properly paid if they win, and that the customer register is sound and ensures that children are prevented from playing, limiting regulations to one piece of computer equipment may not be good enough.
 To be absolutely clear, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with our exact definition of equipment. That is important, and we shall try to get it on the record in a better form than I have just presented.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister's remarks are extremely helpful.
 It would be helpful to establish the Government's intention on remote gambling. Is it to encourage as many of those businesses as possible to register onshore in the United Kingdom so that we have some control—albeit immeasurable, because it depends on how many develop over the next few years—and so that such businesses can be regulated? Do the Government intend to encourage many businesses to locate here to encourage jobs, establish resources and regulate as much of the market as possible? In light of that, is it not in the Government's interest to make sure that they find a pragmatic and practical solution to the problems, so that not all equipment used in the business is subject to the provisions and that the key components only—particularly the gaming server—are caught in the net?

Richard Caborn: As I said, I shall come back with a precise definition of ''equipment''.
 As to whether we are trying to encourage people to operate out of the UK, the answer is yes, but not at the price of poor regulation. As I have said on a number of occasions, we are taking what was in the Gaming Act 1968, which gave our industry an integrity second to none, and trying to bring that into a modern setting via the gambling commission. 
 We want to make sure that people who gamble in the UK know that gambling will be fair and transparent, and that casinos will pay out. We expect people to come for a product that is well regulated, fair and transparent. We hope that we can attract as many people as possible to operate under those conditions in the UK. To a large extent, Budd's review was aimed at achieving that objective, and that is still our aim. We would encourage as many people as possible to adhere to those conditions but, as I say, not at the price of poor regulation. Good regulation will stand the industry in good stead for the future, both nationally and internationally. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Richard Page: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I have a slight difficulty, and I suspect that one or two of my colleagues do too. You mentioned that the Bill has been reprinted. We went to the Table just now and collected what we thought was the up-to-date Gambling Bill, but it was that of 18 October. I have just examined amendment No. 21 and, regretfully, it does not tie up with the old Bill. I do not see how we can proceed unless we have the up-to-date Bill. Where do we go from here?

Roger Gale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will suspend the Committee for a few minutes to ensure that all Members have the reprinted version of the Bill. Clearly, it is important that what is on the amendment paper matches what hon. Members are working from. The Committee will resume at 9.55 am.
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming—

Roger Gale: Before we proceed, I should say that I am advised that there is also a reprint of the explanatory notes, although the variations are so minimal as to make virtually no difference. However, if any hon. Member wants a reprinted version of the explanatory notes, they will be available.Clause 34 Use of premises

Clause 34 - Use of premises

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in clause 34, page 15, line 31, after 'who', insert
'— (a) are acting in the course of a business, or (b) '.
 This is a drafting amendment to provide further clarity about the premises excluded from the offence in the clause. Subsection (6) already exempts premises that provide facilities for gambling to persons who are not on the premises. That was intended to cover premises that house remote gambling equipment such as computer servers. There is no need for those premises to be licensed. 
 The amendment is intended to give further reassurance to businesses that provide opportunities for people to gamble remotely. One example is telephone call centres that accept bets by telephone. Although there are clearly people on the premises providing facilities for gambling, the premises are never used by the public to gamble. The amendment makes it clear that such premises do not need to be licensed either. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 154, in clause 34, page 16, line 5, at end add— 
 '(10) for the purposes of this section ''use'' shall have its normal and natural meaning.'.—[Mr. Moss.]

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 213, in clause 61, page 25, line 38, at end add—
 '(6)''use'' in this section shall be given its normal and natural meaning'.

Richard Caborn: The amendments are unnecessary and would remove a non-existent doubt. When a word is used in a statute, it has its ordinary and natural meaning unless the statute provides otherwise. The Bill does not provide that the word ''use'' in clauses 34 and 61 has some special meaning. It has its normal meaning, so there is no need to make express provision to that effect.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 - Power to amend section 34

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 155, in clause 35, page 16, line 7, after 'may', insert
', only after consultation with those parties set out in section 22(5) and acting reasonably,'.
 This is a simple amendment, designed to constrain the powers of the Secretary of State so that he must act reasonably in relation to consultation with the various parties involved. It is a probing amendment; if the Minister assures me on record that the Secretary of State will act reasonably in all situations, that will help.

Richard Caborn: I welcome the principle behind the amendment. I firmly agree that consultation is a fundamental part of the law-making process. Indeed, a requirement to consult features throughout the Bill.
 As the Committee will know, the clause gives the Secretary of State the power to add or remove particular forms of gambling from the offence of using premises for gambling. In doing so, the clause future-proofs the Bill. It allows the Secretary of State to bring new gambling technologies into the regulatory regime as they emerge, thus providing immediate protection to the public—something that hon. Members agree is not in the 1968 Act. 
 It is precisely because the purpose of the clause is to allow the Secretary of State to consider any future gambling technologies that a list of specified consultees is not appropriate. That is not to say that consultation is not appropriate—quite the reverse—but we are concerned that a specific list of consultees would not allow the flexibility that is required when dealing with an industry as imaginative and innovatory as gambling. 
 A list in the Bill will focus attention on particular consultees at the risk of detracting attention from others. For example, the Government are committed to consulting the Treasury, the Financial Services Authority and the spread-betting operators in the application of the clause to spread betting. None of those would appear on the list proposed by the hon. Gentleman. Flexibility is key to the proper application of the clause, and I for one would not like to guess who should appear on the list with regard to gambling technologies that do not yet exist. 
 I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State will act well within the context of that explanation, and will act reasonably. I urge him to withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the issue, and for his assurances that the Secretary of State will act reasonably and that consultation has a definite meaning in this context. It is important that all those involved are consulted, and the Minister makes a valid point that there may be entities and arrangements that do not exist at the moment but may in the future, and to prescribe a list at this juncture would be inflexible. I take that point, and bearing in mind his assurances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in clause 35, page 16, line 15, after '10(1)', insert
'subject to any specified exceptions.'.
 This amendment seeks to allow for specified exceptions should the Secretary of State make an order extending the use of premises for gambling offences to include using premises to provide facilities for spread betting. As hon. Members will be aware, spread betting is excluded from regulation under the Bill. That is because spread betting is properly regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. 
 However, we are concerned about the effect that future developments in spread betting products may have on the number and types of places where spread 
 betting is offered to members of the public. That is why a reserved power is written into the Bill to allow the Secretary of State to make it an offence to use premises to offer spread betting to members of the public, should it become necessary for public protection reasons. 
 The amendment to the reserve power permits the Secretary of State to make exceptions where the premises' offence is applied to spread betting. For example, a bank or other financial institution may, in the future, want to offer their customer a financial product that constitutes spread betting within the meaning of the Bill. There may be very good policy reasons why the bank should be allowed to do so, and therefore should be exempt from regulation under the Bill. The amendment would serve to future-proof the Bill and to ensure that legitimate commercial enterprises are not subject to undue regulation. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 36 and 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 - Gambling Software

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 157, in clause 38, page 17, line 32, at end add—
'( ) In the application of subsection (3) to Scotland the reference to 51 weeks shall have effect as a reference to six months.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 158, 159, 167 to 170, 292, 160 to 165, 171 to 186 and 166.

Richard Caborn: The Committee will note that the Bill makes comprehensive provision for Scottish Ministers to exercise powers in place of the Secretary of State for premises in Scotland. With that in mind, it may be helpful if I set out the Government's approach to the role of the Scottish Executive under the Bill, which has been agreed with them.
 Gambling is a reserved matter for the UK Government under the Scotland Act 1998, but before devolution the Scottish Administration always played a significant role in the regulation of gambling, and they will continue to do so. Local licensing boards and local authorities operate the licensing of gambling premises in Scotland, and the Scottish Executive set fees and conditions on some gambling licences. Those arrangements have worked well over some years. 
 The Government propose to standardise their approach. We believe that it is right for the Scottish Executive to take the lead in deciding the secondary legislation and conditions that are appropriate for premises and permits in Scotland. Premises licence fees will remain with local authorities in Scotland, so it seems fair for the Scottish Executive to set fees for their local authorities. In many cases, the Executive wish to align their regime for gambling with their proposals 
 for a new alcohol licensing regime. That seems entirely reasonable to the Government, and the Bill will enable that to happen. 
 It also seems fair that the Scottish Executive should take the lead in setting conditions on premises licenses. The impact of gambling premises in a particular locality will be for the local authority to consider. If there is to be a power to set mandatory or standard conditions, it seems more suitable for it to be exercised by the Scottish Executive, because it relates to functions undertaken by local authorities in Scotland. I am sorry that I have strayed a little in my remarks, but I thought that it would be helpful to the Committee if I set out the Government's approach to the issue at the first opportunity. 
 All the amendments in this group are drafting amendments. A number of the offences created by the Bill—for example, the use of premises offence under clause 34—provide that the maximum period of imprisonment that can be imposed on summary conviction in Scotland is six months. Amendments Nos. 157 to 159 and 166 ensure that the main offences created by the Bill are consistent with that. In England and Wales, section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 increased the maximum sentence for all summary offences triable by magistrates from six months to 51 weeks. In Scotland, the maximum period of imprisonment that can be imposed on summary conviction for virtually all statutory offences is six months, and the Bill aims to achieve consistency with existing Scottish sentencing practice. That approach has been agreed with the Scottish Executive. Criminal justice is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so it will be up to the Scottish Executive to introduce legislation to increase the maximum period of imprisonment that can be imposed on a summary conviction for statutory offences. 
 Schedule 6 specifies a number of relevant offences that can be taken into account when considering an application for an operating licence. Amendments Nos. 167 to 170 insert into Scots law offences equivalent to those already included for England and Wales. Amendment No. 292 adds to the schedule: 
 ''An inchoate offence relating to an offence listed elsewhere in this Schedule.'' 
As a result, if a person is convicted of inciting, assisting or conspiring in an offence listed in schedule 6, that counts as a relevant offence. The Government consider it important for the purpose of preventing gambling being a source of crime and for protecting the public to ensure that the Bill covers persons convicted of all such offences. 
 Amendment No. 160 refers to clause 148, which specifies responsible bodies for premises licence applications. In England and Wales, the licensing authority is the local authority, and it may want to make representations to a licensing committee considering the details of an application in the exercise of its functions. However, in Scotland a local licensing board is the licensing authority with responsibility for considering applications and taking decisions. The only function that licensing boards have is to consider and determine applications for licences. It would 
 therefore be nonsense for the licensing board to have power to make a representation to itself, and amendment No. 160 removes that possibility. 
 Amendments Nos. 161, 165, 171, 173 and 176 to 178 insert powers for Scottish Ministers to set fees for copies of premises licences, gaming machine permits, lottery registration, club gaming permits and prize gaming permits for applications in Scotland. The powers follow the general policy of the Bill that licence fees paid to licence authorities in Scotland should be set by Scottish Ministers. That carries on the practice set under existing legislation. Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 give Scottish Ministers the power to specify the forms of notices in clauses 183 and 186. Amendment No. 164 excludes Scotland from the effects of clause 197. That is necessary because the clause works partly with reference to the local government best value regime south of the border. The Scottish Executive decided that they wish to set central fees for premises licensed in Scotland. 
 Amendments Nos. 186 and 172 to 175 insert provisions for appeals to Scotland in schedules 9, 10 and 11. Amendment No. 174 excludes Scotland from the effects of paragraph 10 of schedule 10, which provides a procedure for clubs licensed under the Licensing Act 2003 to gain a club gaming licence. The 2003 Act does not apply in Scotland. My officials are working with their colleagues in the Scottish Executive to settle on arrangements for clubs in Scotland, which will be the subject of further amendments. Amendments Nos. 177 and 178 also insert correct terminology for police in Scotland. 
 Finally, amendments Nos. 179 to 185 insert the correct reference to sequestration—the Scottish equivalent of bankruptcy—in paragraph 14 of schedule 14.

Roger Gale: Before we proceed with the debate, I say to the Committee that hon. Members will have noticed that all the amendments relating to Scottish business have been grouped together. They will be moved formally by the Minister as they arise later in the Bill, so they will not be debated later. Therefore, this is the opportunity for hon. Members to debate any matters relating to gaming in Scotland that they wish to raise, but it is not an opportunity for an Adjournment debate on the merits or otherwise of devolution.

Malcolm Moss: I have no wish to debate all the amendments relating to Scotland. I am more than happy for Scotland to get on with it and discuss them in its devolved Government.
 I have one question for the Minister: why have we got all these amendments at the eleventh hour? The Bill has been in gestation for months, if not years, and here we are in Committee with all these amendments that refer to Scotland. How did the Minister and his team overlook Scotland in the first place?

Richard Caborn: I do not think that we overlooked Scotland.

Ann McKechin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether he has had any discussions with his colleagues in the Scottish Executive regarding the application of planning law to casinos? As he will be aware, the Secretary of State has announced that as far as the law applies in England, casinos and bingo halls need a different use class order. I have checked the town and country planning legislation for Scotland: at the moment use class orders for Scotland are very similar, but casinos and bingo clubs are in the same category. Has the Minister had any discussions with his colleagues in the Scottish Executive about whether they propose to make a similar amendment to Scottish planning legislation?

Richard Caborn: We are working with the Scottish Executive. My hon. Friend will appreciate that detailed discussions are taking place to ensure that we can dovetail the measures and ensure that they operate in the best way. That is why we have tabled the amendments. I do not think that they change the policy. As I said, the amendments are broadly technical and aim to ensure that things work smoothly in Scotland. Planning is a devolved matter, so we had to table the amendments to ensure that the measures dovetail properly with devolved arrangements. As planning is devolved, the decision that we are discussing is one for the Scottish Executive.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 - Cheating

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 142, in clause 39, page 17, line 37, at end insert
'or
(c) commits directly or indirectly any act which permits or effects advantage or benefits not intended by the manufacturer or operator of the game.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 310, in clause 39, page 17, line 41, at end insert
 '(2A)A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse (the burden of proof of which shall lie upon him), he has with him in a casino any article that is capable of, or is intended for recording, analysing or predicting— 
 (a) the outcome of a game; 
 (b) any cards played or to be played in a game; 
 (c) the probability of the occurrence of an event relating to a game; or 
 (d) the strategy for playing a game. 
 (2B) The provisions of subsection (2A) shall not apply to any article which is used for making a handwritten record in respect of a game.'.

Malcolm Moss: The clause deals with cheating but it does not define exactly what we mean by that; there is no definition of it in the Bill. Instead, the clause refers to the committing of an offence if one ''cheats at gambling'' or enables or assists another person to do the same. Of course, cheating can take the form of obtaining an advantage in the playing of a game, but it
 should also capture those aspects of illegally acquiring moneys from games which are not currently captured, for example, by legislation on theft. For instance, I am informed that the selling of picklocks or other devices that can be used to remove moneys from gaming machines is not currently caught by UK legislation. The amendment seeks to address that defect.

Don Foster: As you will see, Mr. Gale, I have also tabled an amendment that deals with cheating.
 The Committee will be well aware that the clause provides for a criminal offence of cheating at gambling and repeals the old offence of cheating in section 17 of the Gaming Act 1845. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Bill provides no definition of ''cheating'', but it is assumed, and the explanatory notes tell us, that it 
''has its normal, everyday meaning.'' 
I think that the Committee will be grateful that, for once, the Bill refers to an everyday meaning. 
 As the Committee will be well aware, however, the Bill is based on the examination by the Government, the Joint Committee and others of what has happened in other countries. The Minister has told us on a number of occasions that lessons have been learned, for example, from what has happened in Australia. The reason for moving the amendment is that one lesson has not been learned from some states in Australia and, indeed, from South Africa, whose legislation includes provision similar to that incorporated in the amendment. 
 Clause 39 already provides for an offence of cheating. The amendment would make it a criminal offence for a person to have in their possession in a casino a computer, camera or similar device that would enable them to predict the outcome of a game or otherwise obtain an unfair advantage. The Minister may say that such a situation is already covered in the clause, but some states in Australia and South Africa have found it necessary to incorporate that issue relating to cheating as part of their legislation. They have not thought it appropriate to leave it to be dealt with by the type of wording to which the Minister refers. I look forward to what he has to say and I shall listen carefully. If I do not receive an absolute assurance that these issues are covered, I may wish to press the amendment to a vote.

Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman, if I may gently remind him, referred to moving the amendment. He will appreciate that the amendment is grouped. I am sure that if he wishes to press it to a vote, he will find a way to let the Chairman know.

Nick Hawkins: I want to comment briefly on what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has said, because I can certainly understand the importance of his point about a gap that may have been left in the Bill, in the light of experience in Australia and South Africa. I see a certain merit in proposing something along the lines of amendment No. 310, but I am concerned about the precise way in which it has been drafted. It would be unwise, in an amendment to such a Bill, to introduce
 the concept of putting the burden of proof on to the defendant. I see that the hon. Gentleman nodding. It is far better to leave issues about the burden of proof to fall as they usually do in the criminal law. If the amendment just said ''without reasonable excuse'' and did not contain the words in brackets about reversing the burden of proof, I would be a great deal happier.
 Let me explain what I think is the other weakness in the hon. Gentleman's drafting. We might all regard the recording, analysing or predicting of cards or the outcome of a game as cheating, but I am not so sure whether that applies to analysing the strategy for playing a game. I realise that he is talking about articles taken into a casino, such as computers and so on, but it seems to me that there is a big difference between cheating by way of analysing what cards other players hold and trying in some way to control the outcome of a game, and analysing probabilities and strategies. That might be regarded as something that intelligent people would want to do. 
 Whether people should be allowed to have technological help is the point that the amendment deals with specifically, but I think that there is a difference between having things that enable someone to look at another player's cards, and things that are purely about probability and strategy. I make that point gently to the hon. Gentleman. My main concern is that we should not try to introduce by way of an amendment to this Bill something as crucially significant to the criminal law as reversing the burden of proof. 
 I have one further point—about words having their normal and natural meaning. I am not convinced that it is wise in this Bill to leave ''cheating'' undefined. That will lead to a lot of open questions in the courts. It is said that juries are good at deciding whether a person is honest or dishonest, but if the types of cheating that the Government have in mind were to be defined in the Bill, that might be helpful at criminal trials of the kind in which I used to prosecute and defend. I do not entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bath that it is wise to leave words to their normal and natural meaning. That will make it difficult for judges to give directions to juries so that they are clear about what they are supposed to be deciding in any trial based on this legislation, if it stays in its current form.

Richard Caborn: Picklocks that are supplied for the purpose of stealing are covered in clause 39(1)(b). I am pleased that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire has raised the matter. The case earlier in the year at the Ritz was among those that highlighted legitimate concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed new offence of cheating. It would be wrong for me to go into that case, but we did think carefully about the use of electronic equipment to narrow the odds in casino games, and whether we needed to strengthen the offence in the Bill. We concluded that the cheating clause covered everything that we would want to stop: a gambler who does anything that unfairly increases his chances of winning is cheating and is therefore covered.
 To be more specific about what is cheating and what is not would make the clause too complicated. There is also a danger in trying to draw too rigid a line, as circumstances can vary so much. There is an art to playing many games, and we should not do anything that puts at risk a person who properly tries to use his skills to maximise his chances of winning. A person who goes beyond that, and acts in an underhand or unfair way, will be cheating and will be covered by the offence. 
 There is an important role in that area for the commission in that it can impose conditions on the operating licence that deal with the detail of regulation—here we differ from Australia in the way in which we deal with particular risks. One objective of licensing is fairness. Therefore, the commission might reasonably prevent licensees from allowing customers to use electronic prediction devices in casinos and on other premises. In matters as detailed and complex as this, I would ask the hon. Member for Bath to leave it to the good sense of the commission to decide when to interfere and when to leave well alone.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the Minister, and I am listening to him carefully. Will he acknowledge that there is a significant difference between the gambling commission's using the licensing process to require casinos not to allow people in with cameras, recording devices or whatever, and the casino operators themselves wanting such a prohibition and to be sure that they will not find themselves in difficulties if they impose such a ban or bring charges against an individual, even if the gambling commission has not placed a requirement on them to ban such pieces of equipment?

Richard Caborn: The case would have to be made that something was unfairly increasing the chances of winning, and could therefore be defined as cheating. We considered the matter in the context of the Ritz case and others, and we believe that the measures in the Bill adequately protect both customers and operators and make it possible to identify cheats. Licensing is part of that protection, but the gambling commission will also have wider powers that will enable it to intervene in cases of cheating. The powers are there, and the definition in the Bill gives the commission scope to deal with present circumstances and any that might occur in future in relation to electronic gadgetry. The Bill is as safe as it can be.

Malcolm Moss: I am not sure what the hon. Member for Bath thinks about the Minister's response, but I still have some doubts as to whether the Government are that confident about their definition of cheating. The Minister did not address the issue that I raised about picklocks, which are devices that can be fixed to gaming machines.

Richard Caborn: The first thing that I said was that picklocks used for the purpose of stealing are covered by clause 39(1)(b), which applies to
''anything for the purpose of enabling or assisting another person to cheat at gambling.''

Malcolm Moss: The Minister must forgive me; I was distracted by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire and missed his comment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 28, in clause 39, page 18, line 7, leave out subsection (4). —[Mr. Caborn.] 
 Clause 39, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 - Chain-gift schemes

Amendment made: No. 158, in clause 40, page 18, line 40, at end add— '() In the application of subsection (4) to Scotland the reference to 51 weeks shall have effect as a reference to six months.'.— [Mr. Caborn.] 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Richard Page: As background, because the then relevant Minister was indisposed, I had to move the Third Reading of the Bill that became the Trading Schemes Act 1996, which included proposals on the chain-gift scheme. I seek clarification on how the clause interrelates with that Act, and on whether legislation already covers any proposed offence. We must leave aside the fact that the drafting that covers the chain-gift scheme seems to be open to abuse. For example, it seems that one could avoid prosecution—under clause 3(a), which refers to section 6—if one were to offer a small gift in return for payment.
 Obviously, the avowed intent of the 1996 Act was to deduce a widening of the definition of goods to 
''property of any description and a right to, or interest in, property''. 
Guidance on that Act on the Department of Trade and Industry website states: 
 ''Goods include the rights to property of any kind. This means that schemes which do little more than circulate money between the members of the scheme are subject to the controls.'' 
The guidance goes on to say: 
 ''In a legitimate trading scheme, payments are linked essentially to genuine selling of goods or services to end users.'' 
I assume that the reasoning behind the clause is driven by the various scams that have taken place, such as the ''Women Empowering Women'' scam. The DTI eventually got around to putting out advice that the original ''Women Empowering Women'' scam 
''does not appear to contravene current UK legislation on pyramid schemes or multi level marketing because it does not involve any trading of products or services nor any form of company structure or control.'' 
That seems directly to contravene the paragraph that I have just quoted about the amended definition of goods. May I persuade the Minister simply to compare the clause with the 1996 Act and to conclude whether the proposed offences are already offences under the Act? I am sure that he has the answer at his fingertips, 
 but in order to speed things up, and as he is a reasonable person, perhaps he will consider the matter and, if appropriate, table some amendments later.

Richard Caborn: We do not believe that there is any overlap. We would not need the clause if the current laws were adequate. Its purpose is to put it beyond any doubt that the type of pyramid selling that the hon. Gentleman describes is banned. We hope that we will see an end to chain gifting. We gave clear assurances on the Floor of the House about that. The clause is drafted in a way that covers all eventualities. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and if we need to reinforce the wording I will return with further amendments. There is no disagreement between us on the end objective, and we believe that we have achieved that, but we will review it in light of what has been said in Committee.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 - Provision of unlawful facilities abroad

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 151, in clause 41, page 19, line 3, leave out 'a' and insert
'— (a) the United States of America, and (b) any other'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 143,
 in clause 41, page 19, line 6, at end add— 
 '(4) The Secretary of State shall publish and lay before Parliament a statement setting out the criteria by which a country or place will be designated a prohibited territory.'.

Malcolm Moss: The clause provides that a person commits an offence if he does anything in Great Britain, including using remote gambling equipment, to enable a person in a prohibited territory to participate in remote gambling. There is currently no restriction regarding the way in which the Secretary of State can use this power or how she can distinguish between different prohibited territories. Given that an order can also prescribe maximum penalties, including possible imprisonment, the means of making such an order should be as transparent as possible. It is important that concessions are not granted to territories that could have the potential to circumvent other aspects of UK policy, particularly in relation to casinos. Amendment Nos. 143 and 151 seek to ensure that a clear policy statement is laid before Parliament and that, at a minimum, a person in the USA is prohibited from participating in remote gambling at this time. Clearly other countries that could result in market distortion could be added in accordance with agreed policy.

Richard Caborn: I sympathise with the principle behind amendment No. 143. I agree that we must be transparent in our decision making, and that other states must be clear about the framework within which
 the British gambling industry operates. However, the amendment risks restricting the Government's flexibility in meeting the demands of the rapidly evolving gambling environment. The criteria for prohibiting a particular territory must be able to evolve as quickly as that environment. The Secretary of State may need to consider matters as diverse as the global market, international agreements and religious and cultural issues. She must be able to move quickly to meet new concerns not set out in the existing criteria. It may not be possible to anticipate every circumstance in which a decision has to be made, so it may not be possible to give an exhaustive description of the criteria.
 Amendment No. 151 is less easy to sympathise with. The Government believe in the principles of free trade, and those principles apply equally to a properly regulated gambling industry as to any other. The United States Government have sought to limit their citizens' access to non-US gambling sites. That is a matter for that Government. I see no reason for this Government to legislate on the issue. We have maintained that it is for gambling operators to decide whether they accept customers from countries where particular forms of gambling are prohibited. Some operators have decided not to accept customers from the United States; others continue to do so. This is a commercial decision for operators. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. He rightly pointed out that remote gambling is an offence in the US. However, its jurisdiction would not apply to businesses located in our country which run remote gambling, so why cannot the Bill state that it is an offence to trade with punters from the US?

Richard Caborn: That has confused me a little, but I think I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It is not an offence. We believe in the free market; it is not us but the US that is restricting it. It is up to operators here to decide whether to accept bets from the US; that is a commercial decision for them.
 We have a free and well regulated environment, so we do not believe that we need to include that type of restriction in the Bill. We believe in a free market in this area, as we do in any other industry. The US has decided to impose restrictions, and operators here have to make a commercial decision whether to accept bets from US punters.

Malcolm Moss: That underlines the difficulty of controlling internet gambling. There are different jurisdictions with different laws on it, and it will be hard to exercise the kinds of control that we would like.
 We agree that the Government are going down the right road in encouraging businesses to operate here and be regulated, and that is the true test. In view of the Minister's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 - Invitation to gamble

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 144, in clause 43, page 19, line 16, after 'he', insert 'intentionally'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 306, in clause 43, page 19, line 16, leave out first 'or'.
 No. 307, in clause 43, page 19, line 16, after 'permits', insert 'or enables'. 
 No. 308, in clause 43, page 19, line 17, after 'gamble', insert 
'or colludes with a person conducting such activities'. 
No. 145, in clause 43, page 19, line 37, leave out 'with a view to' and insert 'for the purpose of'. 
 No. 146, in clause 44, page 20, line 22, after 'he', insert 'intentionally'.

Malcolm Moss: Amendment No. 144, and the consequential amendment No. 146 to clause 44, seek to strengthen the Bill's wording. The offence in clause 43 seems to be an absolute offence except to the extent that it is limited in subsection (3), which refers to ''intentionally'' bringing to the attention of a child information regarding gambling.
 We want to provide an offence that protects those innocent members of the gambling industry who have no intention of inviting a child or young person to gamble. There should be a defence where the inviter uses due care or was unaware, and was not reckless about whether the information had gone to a child or young person. The meaning of ''intentionally'' could be explained further in the code of practice, if necessary. 
 Amendment No. 145 would make the wording more specific and clear. The clause leaves open to interpretation the phrase ''with a view to''. That could mean allowing for the possibility of, or even specifically encouraging. The amendment's purpose is to avoid any unnecessary ambiguity by specifying that the purpose of bringing information to the attention of a child or young person must have been to encourage them to gamble.

Liam Byrne: I shall speak only briefly because my amendments Nos. 306 to 308 are simply probing amendments, and I am as anxious as everyone else to speed the Bill out of the Committee stage as it is well drafted and has been well scrutinised.
 I hate to be the first to point out that there are now only 24 shopping days until Christmas. 3G phones may well be one of the most popular products put under the Christmas tree this year. Given the success with which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer auctioned off 3G licences a few years ago, it is not unreasonable to expect the mobile industry to seek to recover some of its costs, and to make a profit in the not-too-distant future. It is almost certain that online gambling will be one of the most important services that the industry will seek to offer. 
 This summer, Ladbrokes and 3G offered the first gambling products over a mobile phone platform, offering 38 different ways to make or lose a bit of money. That concerns us because it is already clear how powerful online gambling has become: if one types the words ''online gambling'' into an internet search engine, one gets some 4.3 million pages, and clicking on a few of those links results in every possible enticement and very little support. The support seems to extend only to psychic casino gambling hotlines and online horoscopes. When we consider the child protection measures, the concerns really grow. 
 The hon. Member for Bath pointed out on Second Reading a survey by NCH earlier this year which showed that only seven out of 37 online gambling systems stopped children under the age of 16 registering. Indeed, children as young as 11 were able to register with online gambling services. The advent of 3G phones puts those risks into every playground and every classroom. Mobile online gambling is itself going to be extremely powerful: analysts project that it will be worth some £4 billion by 2006. When we consider that one in 20 children aged 12 to 15 is already estimated to have a problem with gambling, we must ensure that there is adequate protection against such risks in the Bill. 
 It is no surprise that 73 per cent. of parents are already concerned about 3G phones; they are right to be concerned about the services that their children will be able to access. These are simple probing amendments designed to check that the mobile phone industry will play its part in protecting children against the risks of online gambling. Amendment No. 303 suggests that the definition of the offence be extended so that those who enable children to gamble online or who collude with an online advertiser are committing an offence. Today, 3G phone operators operate their services in a walled garden; the amendments are designed to ensure that those walls are sufficiently strong to prevent the advent of a casino in every cloakroom.

Nick Hawkins: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the good sense of what he has just said: a lot of parents would be horrified if they had heard it. I hope that it will be widely reported because most parents buying 3G phones for their children may be completely unaware that they provide a way into online gambling. Parents should be aware of that. I was going to raise a
 slightly different point, but having heard the hon. Gentleman, I wanted to refer with approval to what he said.
 I very much agree with the amendment No. 144, to which I added my name. There should be some requirement of intention to ensure that those who legitimately operate businesses such as seaside arcades will not be unfairly persecuted by prosecuting authorities or police. Many members of the British Amusement and Catering Trades Association have operated their arcades responsibly for many years, with their tough codes of practice, but if the clause is not amended, they would be caught by the Bill without doing anything that we would consider wrong. There should be some sort of defence that means that an arcade proprietor will be guilty of an offence only if they have been intentional or reckless in encouraging children. I am always worried when legislation introduces or modifies offences in such a way that they are left sufficiently open-ended that those who operate businesses legitimately can inadvertently be caught. 
 The amendment is important because I do not want the Bill to lead to a raft of prosecutions of people who are legitimately operating businesses exactly as they have done for years, and who are doing nothing to encourage children to gamble. They are not being reckless about that at all. Unless we build in some protection, there is a great danger of such prosecutions.

Richard Caborn: I thank the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire for tabling the amendments; they allow me to put on the record what we are all trying to achieve in the Bill. The amendment would give more protection to operators. However difficult it is for operators to keep children away from their services, particularly on the internet, we should not lessen the burden on them.
 Amendments Nos. 144 and 146 would require a court to prove that the defendant intended to invite a child to gamble or enter their premises. That would be a difficult test, because operators might not have been sufficiently observant or careful in their age checks. If that were so, they would not have intended to let children gamble; they just would not have done anything to stop it. That is too risky. 
 Let me give an example. Of a group of teenagers hanging around outside a betting office, some may be 18 years old and others may be 16 or 17. If they enter the premises and use a slot machine, the staff should feel that they have a duty to check their ages. We should not offer an operator a defence of unintentional invitation. Of course, the police will have discretion not to prosecute someone who has been caught out once, or on a few occasions. 
 The provisions proposed by amendments Nos. 306 to 308 are already covered in the clause. Although there is no specific reference to collusion or enabling in the clause, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) that such activities would be caught by the words ''invites, 
 causes or permits''. Liability as an accessory applies to all offences unless they are expressly excluded by statute, which is not the case here. 
 Amendment No. 145 focuses on advertising and tries to strengthen the defences for operators, but it would not give any better protection. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire seeks to changes the wording in relation to adverts that find their way to children. However, if we made that change, it would not alter the fact that the operator has to be seen to be ''encouraging'' the child or young person to gamble. That is the test. The key point is whether a poster on the underground, for example, encourages children to gamble, with pictures of cartoon characters and the like. The test would operate no less stringently if the hon. Gentleman's amendment were accepted. 
 A gambling operator commits the offence, but if the platform knows what is going on and colludes, it too is committing an offence. That crossed my mind when we were talking about youngsters with mobile phones. Therefore, if the operator and the platform knowingly put out such an advert, they would both be committing an offence.

Nick Hawkins: I am still not happy with the response that the Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and to me. He is saying that there will be an all-embracing, blanket offence, but that it will be left to the police to turn a blind eye if they think that the arcade operator is not actively encouraging children to enter the premises.
 I am concerned because subsection (1) says that the offence is committed if a person 
''permits a child or young person to gamble''. 
That is no defence and it is no requirement of intention, or even recklessness, as my hon. Friend said. That is not good law. It is wrong for Parliament to introduce a law that says, ''This is all-embracing, but we'll leave it to the police to turn a blind eye if they wish.'' That is not the kind of thing that we parliamentarians ought to be doing. A defence ought to be built in. I am very unhappy about the Minister's response.

Richard Caborn: If one accepted the hon. Gentleman's argument, we would have a narrow offence, and then we would run the risk of not protecting some children. The balance that we have struck will catch the offences. Again, we will be working through the gambling commission. There will also be conditions of licensing and other measures. My explanation was about the actions of the police.
 The hon. Gentleman is saying that we should narrow down the offence, but if we do that, we could well allow some offences to get through. The Bill gives adequate protection to children and puts the onus on the operator, which is where it should lie. That is what the House asked for, and the type of protection that we said we would give; that is one of the main parts of the Bill.

Malcolm Moss: I am still a little puzzled. I am following the line of argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath. Subsection (3) says:
 ''In subsection (1) a reference to inviting a child or young person to gamble includes, in particular, a reference to intentionally— 
 (a) sending to a child . . . any document . . . 
 (b) bringing to the attention of a child or young person information''. 
The word ''intentionally'' is in the Bill; we simply sought to place the same word in subsection (1), so that it would read: ''A person commits an offence if he intentionally invites, causes or permits a child or young person to gamble.'' I am at a loss to understand why ''intentionally'' in subsection (1) would be any weaker or less acceptable than it is in subsection (3). I would like the Minister to say why ''intentionally'' is so wrong in subsection (1), but fine in subsection (3).

Richard Caborn: If one takes the totality of clause 43, one sees that it gives widening powers to ensure that we protect young people and children. Specifically, ''intentionally'' is in subsection (3) because one can send an advert to a whole host of people, but there is a need to separate out those adverts sent to children. I go back to the point that I was making to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath: the argument has been made that we should narrow down the provision, but we say that we should not. We believe that the provision is proportionate for what is required to catch those offences relating to young people.
Mr. Moss rose—

Richard Caborn: That was a very good explanation, was it not?

Malcolm Moss: If the Minister thinks that, he is not based in reality. I am not convinced by the argument, and we will press amendment No. 144 to a Division.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 226, in clause 43, page 19, line 19, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Government amendments Nos. 227, 229 to 234 and 238.
 Government new clause 6—Non-commercial betting.

Richard Caborn: I was just wondering whether we could get the clock to work. It says a quarter to 12, and I keep thinking that we have gone 15 or 20 minutes over our time; it is a bit disconcerting.
 In the draft Bill of November 2003, private and non-commercial gaming and private and non-commercial betting were specifically defined. The terminology has evolved, and, instead, we now have the terms ''private betting'' and ''private gaming'', which are expressly defined in schedule 12, and ''non-commercial gaming'', which is defined in clause 280. Hence the need for drafting amendments Nos. 226, 227 and 229 to 234, which update the relevant terminology in clauses 43, 45, 47 and 48 so that it refers to private and non-commercial gaming and betting. 
 The definition of private betting in schedule 12 does not cover all types of non-commercial betting. New clause 6 will further clarify the term ''non-commercial betting'', as used in part 4, to ensure that an offence is not committed where neither party to a bet is acting in the course of a business. Government amendment No. 238 will add the term ''non-commercial betting'' to the list of general definitions in the Bill. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No 227, in clause 43, page 19, line 20, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.—[Mr. Caborn.] 
 Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 - Invitation to enter premises

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 297, in clause 44, page 20, line 27, leave out subsection (2).

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Government amendment No. 228.
 Amendment No. 298, in clause 44, page 20, line 32, leave out subsection (3). 
 Government amendments Nos. 235 and 236.

Malcolm Moss: Clause 44 centres quite rightly on the importance of protecting children from invitations to enter premises. Under the Bill, most premises are prohibited from giving access to children, and the only exception is in clause 44(2). Amendments Nos. 297 and 298 are probing amendments, which deal with regional casinos and suggest removing subsections (2) and (3).
 In light of the Bill or of guidance to the gambling commission, a proportion of the floor area in large regional casinos will be set aside for non-gaming activities. In fact, as things stand, the largest proportion will be devoted to such activities, and we are very much in favour of that. However, casinos, of themselves, are not family entertainment centres, and even those areas in which gambling does not take place 
 might, depending on the design of a particular regional casino, retain a gambling focus. Do we want to create the impression that the sort of hard gambling that can be found in certain casinos is an everyday social activity? 
 Why will the Government protect children from the gambling environment in a large casino, which will also have non-gambling areas, but apparently allow them to witness gambling on an even grander scale elsewhere? That includes category A machines, which will not be in large and small casinos but only in regional casinos. Why will we allow children to see such activity there from the sidelines? Do we want children to associate casinos and gambling with glamour? 
 These probing amendments are designed to elicit an assurance that the Government are clear in their own mind about how they will erect Chinese walls between the casino activity in big regional casinos and the other leisure activities that are part of the operation, whether those activities involve theatres, bar areas, swimming pools, ice rinks or whatever. You name it—all sorts of combinations have been proposed. If the Government are serious about protecting children, it is important that, either in the Bill or in an assurance from the Government in the guidance, proper barriers should be in place between the gaming area and the other leisure activities. We would like the Minister to clarify what those barriers will be, but certainly we would not be in favour of children being able to see through in any way to a gaming area or to be in cool-out areas, where people go to rest and think about their losses before going back in.

Richard Page: They are called ''chill-out areas''.

Malcolm Moss: I thought that ''cool'' was the word, but ''chill-out'' is fine. Presumably people sit in such areas feeling depressed about their losses before deciding to go back in and lose even more money. We want the Government to inform the Committee of how importantly they view the protection of children, particularly in respect of regional casinos.

Richard Page: I support my hon. Friend. He is obviously suffering as a result of some sort of age gap at the moment, but I agree with everything that he said. The clause is well drafted as far as it goes. It is right that families should be encouraged to take part in certain activities. I think of race courses, where families can go to watch horses racing and to experience all the excitement of that, and the situation is the same with greyhounds. However, although youngsters will be able to go to a resort casino and take part in activities in non-gaming areas, it would be completely wrong for them to be able to see into gaming areas. All of us can remember going to a casino. People see the machines and the flashing lights. I think that that would have an enormous attraction for youngsters, who would want to wander among them or to be gaming. We should not encourage them in that in any way.
 I endorse what my hon. Friend said. There should not just be a barrier that youngsters cannot cross; it must prevent them from seeing what is going on in gaming areas. I hope that that will be reflected in the appropriate drafting of the licences, when they are granted, for casinos to be constructed.

Richard Caborn: Amendments Nos. 297 and 298 would prevent children from entering non-gaming areas of regional casinos. The Government and the Joint Committee considered that carefully, and the Committee recommended that children should not be allowed into non-gambling areas of small and large casinos. It thought that such areas would be too small to offer a suitable range of non-gambling facilities and ensure that a suitable distance was maintained from the gambling area. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire raised that question.

Bob Russell: I do not mean to be awkward, but will the Minister explain his references to the ban on children applying in small casinos operating as casinos and the 24 hours when they are not operating as casinos?

Richard Caborn: As I understand it, the ban on children will apply. The licence will be granted with the condition to exclude children from the areas in question in large and small casinos per se. That is my understanding, although I will seek guidance and let the hon. Gentleman know if the situation is different.

Richard Page: I endorse what the Minister said. The Joint Committee made the powerful point that it did not believe that children should be permitted into the non-gambling areas of small and large casinos because they would be too small. All Committee members agreed on that. The Committee also mentioned appropriate barriers and there being a suitable distance between the gambling and non-gambling areas of a regional and leisure destination casino. It is the definitions of what we all understand by barriers that we interested in finding out about.

Richard Caborn: If the hon. Gentleman had let me complete my explanation, I would, I hope, have covered that adequately.
 As I was saying, the Committee recommended that children should not be allowed in non-gambling areas of small and large casinos, as such areas would be too small to offer a suitable range of non-gambling facilities and to ensure that a suitable distance was maintained from the gambling area. The Government accepted that recommendation. However, the Joint Committee endorsed our view that children should be permitted into non-gambling areas of regional casinos, as it agreed that it would be possible to ensure a suitable distance from the gambling area and to put effective barriers in place. We believe that the gambling commission will want to give guidance to licensing authorities on that important point and about best practice in separating gambling from non-gambling areas.

Bob Russell: Is there currently a restriction on children using the non-casino part of smaller casinos?

Richard Caborn: The answer, I think, is yes—there are nods all round, so the answer is yes.
 The Government will also want to ensure careful control over the placing and nature of advertisements in non-gambling areas. We will do that using conditions on premises licences and will consider international examples. The non-gambling areas of regional casinos are likely to be large—perhaps even larger than the gaming area—including restaurants, theatres and other leisure activities.

Don Foster: May I be clear about what the Minister is saying? Is he saying that if a regional casino had a bank of category D machines in its overall complex, they would have to be within the defined area, meaning that a child or young person could not gamble at all in such a casino?

Richard Caborn: It hangs on the definition of gambling. The definition does not cover category D machines—they are defined differently. [Interruption.] In fact, category D machines must be in the gambling area as well, so I must admit that what I said was wrong. I will have to have a word with my officials later.
 The point about effective barriers is the concern. As long as they are effective and in place, we see no reason why children should not be allowed in the non-gambling areas with their parents. I therefore ask the Committee to reject those amendments. 
 Government amendments Nos. 228 and 235 are designed to make clear when the offence in clauses 44 and 52 does not apply in regional casinos. Amendment No. 236 to clause 79 ensures consistency of language with clauses 44 and 52. 
 The offences in clauses 44 and 52 do not apply where children or young persons enter the non-gambling area of regional casinos. That is clearly the intent of the existing wording, but that current wording could be misconstrued if the facilities provided in the non-gambling area of a regional casino were specified in the regional casino premises licence. In those circumstances the part of the casino where there were non-gambling facilities could also be said to be 
''being used in reliance of the casino premises licence''. 
The revised wording is designed to ensure that there is no doubt that the offences do not apply where children or young persons enter the non-gambling area of regional casinos or are employed in the non-gambling area of a regional casino.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying certain issues. I am not quite sure about category D machines. A casino might be separate from a leisure activity but there could be a family entertainment centre in the leisure part. If there were, it presumably could contain category D machines.

Don Foster: Between us, the hon. Gentleman and I are pushing the Minister for greater clarity. I suspect that a large number of organisations that are contemplating whether to come to this country to open regional casinos will be fascinated. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will press the Minister to find out whether it would be possible to have a regional casino next to a family entertainment centre, which would be allowed
 to have category D machines. Would that be part of the same complex? Many people would be interested to hear the Minister's answer.
Mr. Caborn rose—
 The Chairman: Order.

Malcolm Moss: That was an intervention, but the hon. Gentleman put the question so well that I will let the words carry over to the Minister and ask him to reply.

Richard Caborn: I am grateful as that gave me time to get the brief.
 I am sure that inward investors in America are not waiting to see whether they will have to invest in category D machines. It will not hang on that. The answer to the question is no. A different premises licence would be required for category D machines. 
Mr. Moss rose—
 Mr. Caborn: I know what the next question will be.

Don Foster: I think he can work it out.

Malcolm Moss: We have all got there. If a premises licence was applied for and granted there would be no reason why a family entertainment centre should not be part of a regional casino development. That would mean that the children could play their category Ds in the family entertainment centre while the parents went to the casino to play the category As. Why does the Minister not simply admit that that is feasible?

Richard Caborn: They are separate areas, and all casinos are covered by one licence.

Malcolm Moss: That is an interesting point. That is a delaying tactic if ever I saw one. A regional casino licence covers not just the casino part but the whole of the enterprise.

Nick Hawkins: To give my hon. Friend time to think, let me say that it occurs to me that a family entertainment centre that was under completely different ownership could apply under normal planning law for the site next door to a regional casino. I see that there is some agreement to that from the people we are not allowed to mention who are following our proceedings. If that is the case, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, supported by the hon. Member for Bath and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire, is quite correct. If there were two completely different ownerships, and two completely different planning applications, the parents could leave the children in the family entertainment centre next door while they went to the casino to play the category A machines. If that is the case, there seems to be no logic in what the Minister says the law will be on casinos.

Roger Gale: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that interventions should be brief.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his long and helpful intervention.

Don Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman see that if two institutions under separate ownership were established adjacent to each other, it would be perfectly possible for the owners of the regional casino to purchase the family entertainment centre? Will he ask the Minister whether it would then be possible to demolish the wall between the two enterprises? Would that constitute a difficulty for the Minister?

Malcolm Moss: I am sure that it would constitute such a difficulty.

Richard Page: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Malcolm Moss: I shall in a moment. I want to get my mind around what was just said. The Government have not thought this through. They do not have a clue what they are on about. They suddenly decide that with a regional casino licence, ipso facto, only category A machines will be involved. No one would invest in the 7,500 sq m of space of a regional casino unless they had 1,250 category A machines. They would not put category D machines in the casino—who is the Minister kidding? The Government have not thought the issue through. As part of the overall leisure complex, there could be a family entertainment centre with category D machines that the children could play. I do not see how the Government can say that they are protecting children from one part of the edifice but not from the other. If there is a regional casino licence for category A machines, why would that not also cover category D machines in another part of the building? I hope that we can get clarification at a later stage.

Richard Page: I am not here to help the Minister, but I believe that to get the regional licence the operator would have to provide a minimum balance of non-gambling areas large enough to accommodate suitable leisure, sport, arts and cultural facilities. Unless those were provided, the operators would not get the overall licence and would not be able to operate the category A machines that they would regard as necessary to make their enterprise pay. A nice edifice has been created, but I do not think that it has firm foundations. I hope that the Minister will give a reassurance that we are not going to give temptation to youngsters and lead them into gambling at a young age.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I was not unaware of the points that he has made. We understand that the leisure complexes will have a casino as part of their structure—something like 1,500 sq m would be put to casino use—and that the balance of the 7,500 sq m would be taken up by hotels, restaurants, ice rinks, facilities for sport and other leisure activities, theatres and so on. We have all seen the models used abroad, particularly in the USA. That is not the problem.
 We have stumbled across the question whether it is possible to have a family entertainment centre with category D machines for the children to play within the overall complex. To date, the message from the Minister is that that is probably not possible because a 
 regional casino licence would allow gaming activity only within the casino part of the complex. I am not sure that the Government really understand the situation. Perhaps we can revisit the issue at a later date for further clarification. 
 We have had a reasonable debate on this issue—

Don Foster: I sense that the hon. Gentleman is about to say that he will, with some assurances, beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I hope that he will not, at least until we have given the Minister an opportunity to faff around and answer the issues. The Minister obviously has a briefing that he is keen to share with us.

Malcolm Moss: It is not my prerogative to allow the Minister to continue to faff around. We are pressed for time and we have faffed around enough. However, if the Minister has something to say, I will happily give way.

Roger Gale: The Minister does not appear to have anything to say.

Malcolm Moss: Even the Minister has had enough faffing around.
 We have had a good debate, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 228, in clause 44, page 20, line 30, leave out 
''in reliance on the casino premises licence'' 
and insert 
''for the provision of facilities for gambling''.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 209, in clause 44, page 21, line 5, at end insert
''the premises are a licensed family entertainment centre and''.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 210, in clause 44, page 21, line 6, leave out paragraph (a).

Malcolm Moss: These are probing amendments. I am told by those involved in pub and club businesses that subsection (7) might include them. I do not think that that is the intention, and we suggest that in order to clarify matters paragraph (a)—
''the premises are a licensed family entertainment centre''— 
should be moved up into the first part of the subsection so that it relates specifically to licensed family entertainment centres and not to pubs and clubs that have category C gaming machines.

Richard Caborn: I am not absolutely clear about the hon. Gentleman's intention. The amendment does not change the effect of the clause. Perhaps that reassures him. The three paragraphs in subsection (7) explain the circumstances of the offence. All must apply for the offence to be committed. The position will be the same if the amendment is agreed to, and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Don Foster: The amendment relates to family entertainment centres, which brings us back to an issue we were debating a few minutes ago.
 I want the Minister to explain some things in a little more detail. I can envisage there being a regional casino that has a range of offerings other than the main gaming part. That part is where the category A machines will be—probably along with category B machines and other things such as the gaming tables—but elsewhere there will be many other offerings. The casino might decide that it wants to put in a family entertainment centre. It would be able to do that in normal circumstances; it would be able to apply for a separate licence as a family entertainment centre within the overall complex. Similarly, I assume that it could apply to put in a pub—Ye Olde Worlde Pub or an Irish pub—as part of the attraction. I think that in the past it would have been able to apply for a separate licence for that facility, which could include category C machines in it. 
 I am unclear whether the Minister is giving us a categorical answer that it is not possible under the overarching umbrella of the regional casino to apply separately for a pub licence which might have category C machines, or for a family entertainment centre, which could have category D machines. I think the Minister has told us that that is not possible, but it would be helpful if he were to say that very clearly before we move on.

Richard Caborn: I hope that this will answer the question that has been raised, which was also raised in another debate. The licensee cannot apply for a second licence for the non-gaming area, and the whole area is covered by the regional casino licence. If we then consider children, clause 44(2) states:
 ''But subsection (1) does not apply where . . . a child or young person is permitted to enter a part of a premises which are being used for a regional casino'' 
on one licence has been applied for— 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.